feat(directives): add 15 engagement-specific directives + tags.toml entries

conductor/directives/scripts_audit_pattern/meta.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# scripts_audit_pattern
+
+## v1
+
+**Why this iteration:** New rule, no prior source. Encodes the existing audit-script conventions as a directive so new audit scripts follow the same shape.
+**Source:** new rule (pattern inferred from existing `scripts/audit_*.py`)
+
+---
+**Lifted:** 2026-07-05

conductor/directives/scripts_audit_pattern/v1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# New audit scripts follow the `audit_<thing>.py` naming + `--json` + `--strict` pattern of the existing 4
+
+## What it says
+
+A new audit script MUST:
+1. Be named `scripts/audit_<thing>.py` (not `check_<thing>.py`, not `lint_<thing>.py`).
+2. Have a `--help` that explains what it checks and how to fix violations.
+3. Have a `--json` mode for CI integration (machine-readable output).
+4. Have a default informational mode (exits 0; prints human-readable report).
+5. Have a `--strict` mode (exits 1 on any violation; the CI gate).
+
+## Why
+
+The 4 existing audit scripts (`audit_weak_types.py`, `audit_exception_handling.py`, `audit_main_thread_imports.py`, `audit_no_models_config_io.py`) all follow this pattern. A new audit script that breaks the pattern (e.g., named `check_foo.py` with no `--strict`) is inconsistent — the CI pipeline will not know how to gate on it, and the user will not know how to run it.
+
+## See also
+
+- `conductor/directives/audit_script_as_gate` — the `--strict` gate rule
+- `conductor/directives/convention_enforcement_4_mechanisms` — the 4-mechanism model